[Talk-us] Parks, again

Doug Hembry doughembry at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 8 00:22:58 UTC 2018

Thanks for the advice, Mateusz. I'll think about this some more, and if 
it still seems like a good idea I'll propose it on github. Andy Townsend 
gave me the same advice.

Best regards

- doug

On 1/7/2018 4:06 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> For start: the best place to propose improvements to default map
> style is to propose it at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto
> In other places it is highly unusual that somebody involved in
> development map style will notice it and on issue tracker
> ( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues ) proposed
> ideas stay under implementation or rejection so nothing is missed
> (though somebody still need to implement it),
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:58:54 +0000
> Doug Hembry <doughembry at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are right that I raised the issue of the green fill for
>> leisure=park because it is being used for large, wild protected
>> lands
> That is clearly incorrect tagging. But I guess that these people would
> just switch to leisure=pitch or leisure=garden if
> rendering for leisure=park would be removed.
>> I'm not sure what you meant about the national_park borders... I'm
>> sorry. Could you clarify?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=national%20park?uselang=en
> is already rendered so I am curious why people still tag for renderer
> and use leisure=park in places that are something completely diffferent.
> Typically it stops when correct tagging is also displayed.
>> And it's really no big inconvenience for mappers to
>> add landuse=grass (or whatever) to their definition of a small urban
>> park.
> Note that in my experience (limited to Europe) it is very unusual for
> entire park to have a single land cover (either grass or trees or
> anything else) and it is vastly simpler to draw park area than many
> landcover=* or landuse=* areas.
>> On the other hand, one could argue that since the natural=*,
>> landcover=* (and even landuse=*) tags exist, why should we be
>> providing another, special way of fill-coloring parks (even small
>> urban parks)?
> Primarily - to display something useful also in areas that are not fully
> mapped (what is quite rare).
>> would be
>> to drop rendering for "boundary=national_park" and
>> "leisure=nature_reserve" as well
> I would not expect it to happen soon. Especially as this tagging is not
> terrible and is simpler than proposed new one and widely used.
> Completely broken waterway=wadi tag still haunts us (see
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1365 ) for
> links to gory details.
> .

More information about the Talk-us mailing list